This criminal petition is filed by the accused under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred

to as the 8Cr.P.C.9 for short) for granting anticipatory bail in UK CEN

Crime No.25/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 67B of

the Information Technology Act, 2000.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that on suo motu

complaint filed by the U.K. CEN police Sudarshan V. Naik registered

the case against the petitioner. It is alleged that as per the cyber

Tip Line report No.75331606, the petitioner uploaded porn videos of

children in social media from his mobile phone. Based upon the

complaint, police registered the case and making hectic efforts to

arrest the petitioner. He has approached the District Court for

grant of bail which came to be rejected and hence, he is before this

Court.

3.

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner

is innocent and he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by

3

this Court. The offence is not punishable with death or life

imprisonment. The petitioner is permanent resident of Uttara

Kannada district.

4.

Learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent seriously objected the bail petition.

5.

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent, perused the records.

6.

On perusal of the records which reveals that from the

petitioner9s mobile phone, a porn video of the child has been

uploaded in the social media. The investigation is pending and the

petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Learned counsel

for petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with

the investigation. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the

case and suo motu complaint registered by the police based upon

porn video which was said to be uploaded from the mobile phone of

the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case whether this petitioner himself has uploaded the video to the

social media through his mobile phone or not is a matter of

4

investigation. At this stage, it may not be ruled out that the

petitioner may not be the person who is holding the phone or

somebody might have used it. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if the petitioner is

granted anticipatory bail by imposing stringent conditions, no

prejudice will be caused to the case of the prosecution.

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

The Criminal petition is allowed. The respondent-U.K. CEN

Police is directed to release the petitioner/accused on bail in the

event of his arrest in U.K. CEN Crime No.25/2021 for the offence

punishable under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act,

2000 subject to the following conditions:

i.

The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a

sum of `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand

only) with a surety for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

ii.

The petitioner shall surrender himself before the

Investigating officer within fifteen days from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

iii.

The

petitioner

shall

not

hamper/tamper

the

prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

iv.

The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences.

5

v.

The petitioner is deemed to be in custody for the

purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the

Indian Evidence Act.

vi.

The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating

officer. He shall appear before the Investigating

Officer for the purpose of investigation as and when

called by the Investigating Officer till filing of charge

sheet.

If any of the conditions is violated, then the prosecution is at

liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Naa